Pope reacts to Viganò and #ViganòTestimony 3.0

Okay, that meant Msgr. Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington DC. He writes about the third Viganò Testimony HERE.

A sample:

As I finished reading Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s third letter, I had an immediate sense that I had just read something that is destined to be one of the great pastoral and literary moments of the Church’s history. There was an air of greatness about it that I cannot fully describe. I was stunned at its soteriological quality — at its stirring and yet stark reminder of our own judgment day. In effect he reminded us that this is more than a quibble over terminology or who wins on this or that point, or who is respectful enough of whom. This is about the salvation of souls, including our own. We almost never hear bishops or priests speak like this today!

[…]

To begin with, he has in mind the moral condition of souls. The Archbishop warns in several places of the danger posed to the souls of the faithful by the silence and confusing actions of many bishops and priests and the Pope. He laments that this, along with the homosexual subculture in the Church, “continues to wreak great harm in the Church — harm to so many innocent souls, to young priestly vocations, and to the faithful at large.”

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, this was the first concern of most every priest: the moral condition of souls, including his own. Today, many bishops and priests, as well as many parents and other leaders in the Church, seem far more concerned with the feelings, and emotional happiness of those under their care than with their actual moral condition. They worry more about political correctness and not upsetting those who engage in identity politics and base their whole identity on aberrant and sinful habits and disordered inclinations.

[…]

Contrast this with Wormtongue Tornielli at La Stampa:

[…]

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in fact insists on the reasons that led him to his sensationalistic gesture by presenting religious self-justifications.

[…]

The former nuncio to the United States who tried to force the Successor of Peter to leave office writes: “I testified fully aware that my testimony would bring alarm and dismay to many eminent persons: churchmen, fellow bishops, colleagues with whom I had worked and prayed. I knew many would feel wounded and betrayed. I expected that some would in their turn assail me and my motives. Most painful of all, I knew that many of the innocent faithful would be confused and disconcerted by the spectacle of a bishop’s charging colleagues and superiors with malfeasance, sexual sin, and grave neglect of duty”.

That’s exactly what happened. Operation Viganò, i.e. the attempt to shift all responsibility onto the current Pontiff for the mismanagement of the case of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick,….

[…]

The rest is a loooong and rather boring attack on Viganò with an especially flacid peroration.

Sides are drawn.

Sometimes, friends, we just have to have the food fight, don’t we. The factions are at a point now where nothing other than providentially guided upheaval will sort it out.

To that end, yesterday a friend showed me a passage in the book of messages from the Lord by “A Benedictine Monk” before the Blessed Sacrament. In In Sinu Iesu dating from March 2010 the monk says that the Lord told him that, soon, we would enter into a final stage of purifying and liberating the priesthood.

Are we there?  Is this the time?

Some sharing options...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in ¡Hagan lío!, Priests and Priesthood, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Pope reacts to Viganò and #ViganòTestimony 3.0

  1. Kevin says:

    “…the Lord told him that, soon, we would enter into a final stage of purifying and liberating the priesthood.”

    Fr. Z, I pray for you and all holy priests as we approach that time. We need you.

  2. majuscule says:

    Father Z, since you pointed out the book In Sinu Jesu I want to mention something that struck me while I was reading it.

    While there is mention of Pope Emeritus Benedict before he stepped down, there is no mention by name of the current Holy Father. I read the paperback edition but I also have the easily searched Kindle edition. I cannot find him mentioned.

    The book was published in 2016. Entries span dates from October 2007 to June of 2016.

    I was affected greatly by this book and bought extra copies to give to friends.

    I leave it up to individual readers to draw their own conclusions.

  3. Man-o-words says:

    Let’s see: every country seems deeply and increasingly divided into liberal and Christian factions = outbreak of civil wars.
    Increasing governmental scrutiny and investigations into the church = persecution of the faithful
    Cardinals vs. Cardinals and Bishops vs bishops.

    Well, it does seem like we have all of the ingredients in place for the stew to be made. Just waiting on enough heat to get it boiling. . .

    Now where are those earthquakes the recipe was calling for? ;) buckle up.

  4. Man-o-words says:

    Let’s see: every country seems deeply and increasingly divided into liberal and Christian factions = outbreak of civil wars.
    Increasing governmental scrutiny and investigations into the church = persecution of the faithful
    Cardinals vs. Cardinals and Bishops vs bishops.

    Well, it does seem like we have all of the ingredients in place for the stew to be made. Just waiting on enough heat to get it boiling. . .

    Now where are those earthquakes the recipe was calling for? ;) buckle up.

  5. Charles E Flynn says:

    Prof. Peter Kwasniewski reviewed “In Sinu Jesu”:

    From https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/a-remarkable-book-from-and-for.html :

    Imagine a combination of St. Gertrude the Great, St. Therese of Lisieux, and Bd. Columba Marmion. Imagine a book that was born in the silence of the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, in the luminous shadow of the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. Imagine a book that draws one ever more deeply into the glorious mysteries of this greatest of all miracles — the Most Holy Eucharist, Bread of Angels, food of wayfarers, sweet incense of oblation, price of the world’s redemption.

    Such a book — In Sinu Jesu. When Heart Speaks to Heart: The Journal of a Priest at Prayer — has just been published by Angelico Press. As an avid reader, I can say with complete honesty that, of works appearing in print during my lifetime, I have seen nothing like it.

  6. Maria says:

    I am reading this book a page a day during Holy Hour …

  7. Maria says:

    I am reading this book a page a day during Holy Hour …

  8. Johann says:

    God bless Arvhbishop Vigano. We must keep him in our prayers.

  9. Johann says:

    God bless Archbishop Vigano. We must keep him in our prayers.

  10. carn says:

    “Sometimes, friends, we just have to have the food fight, don’t we. The factions are at a point now where nothing other than providentially guided upheaval will sort it out.”

    One should always pray, hope and be ready for a peaceful (= no conflict with one side winning and the other losing) resolution of any conflict, however unlikely it may seem.

    In my opinion for any peaceful solution to be possible, both factions would have to understand, that they do not understand each other and that due to perceiving many things differently and in a way nearly speaking different languages.

    E.g.:
    “The rest is a loooong and rather boring attack on Viganò with an especially flacid peroration.”

    I suspect that Tornielli and people at La Stampa and even many of their readers do not consider the text a long and boring attack; yet, in the other faction it is perceived as boring, etc.

    A more critical aspect:

    Both factions probably view homosexual behavior somewhat differently, although both sides are formally catholics and are formally bound by what the catechism says about this.

    This means for example that a following sequence of events:

    PBXVI places verbal restrictions on McCarrick at least due to evidence of consensual homosexual actitivity of McCarrick with adults.

    PF considers what to do with McCarrick; gets knowledge of restrictions due to consensual homosexual activity.

    PF disregards the restrictions and gives McCarrick more qeight/influence/whatever.

    would for on faction be a horrible mistake and rather damning for PF;

    while for the other faction there would be little problem, as there was only evidence of consensual homosexual activity with adults and while it is a sin everybody sins, so it should not disqualify McCarrick from anything.

    And hence, when the first factions calls for PF to resign due to such events having taken place, the other side will see this as a pure political attack without real foundation as PF did not do realy anything wrong.

  11. Gabriel Syme says:

    ++Vigano is a courageous and noble Prelate.

    I pray his interventions have a positive effect. His good example highlights the cowardice of so many Prelates who just sit back in silence.

    I hope that he is working to a game plan: perhaps to entice as many corrupt figures to make denials about (for example) the existence of documents, only to then reveal copies of said documents which he has had all along.

    Perhaps the fear of exactly this kind of scenario is why so few people are saying anything openly at present?

  12. Ivan says:

    Of course we are there.
    Of course this is that time.

  13. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    Msgr. Pope’s comment on Viganó’s concern for the salvation of souls is something I noted and mentioned to one of my priests. Viganó speaks like a Catholic in the letter. He mentions the “salvation of souls” more in 3 or 4 pages than Francis has in all of his Magisterial documents totalled.

  14. Dismas says:

    @carn – There are only four ways that can conceivably resolve this situation without conflict.

    – Scenario 1: Christ returns in power and glory. The End.

    – Scenario 2: TEOTWAWKI event. Take your pick, impact event, global plague, worldwide famine, Yellowstone eruption, unrelated nuclear war, etc.

    – Scenario 3: Divine intervention. Seriously, something big and incontrovertible.

    – Scenario 4: One side or the other gives up and walks away. …I don’t see this happening…

    Perhaps this may come to violence, perhaps not. For now, I suppose the best blueprint for our side comes from the account of David and Saul.

  15. Bellarmino Vianney says:

    It is worth reminding clergy, prelates, and laity that a person can go through life thinking (presuming) they are going to end up in heaven but instead will be surprised by God and be cast into hell.

    That is explained by Jesus in Luke 13:22ff.

    Jesus says in the same Scripture passage that *many* people will end up in hell, and he also says that *many* people think they are going to heaven but will end up in hell.

    There are multiple distinctions that could be made and elaborated on in regards to that passage. It is evident that millions of people presently fall into the category of presuming/assuming they are going to heaven but are instead likely to be cast into hell due to their support of or silence regarding homosexuality, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, socialism, illicit drugs, etc.

    In other words, millions of people are heading to hell due to their support for or lack of opposition to the Democrat party. An unrepentant Democrat voter, supporter, or politician cannot get to heaven. That is based on the Gospel.

    Within the Church Herself, it is apparent that a large number of priests and bishops may be on their way to hell due to their support of or silence regarding the evils of Pope Francis.

  16. carn says:

    @Dismas:

    Maybe. But i suspect that the evil one “happily” plays both sides of this conflict; and that therefore one should avoid too much animosity towards the other side, as thereby one is more likely to be wrong even if one is on the “right” side of the conflict.

    And to keep that down it is good to remember, that the other side simply in a certain sense honestly does understand words and gestures differently.

  17. Malta says:

    @Dismas: I agree with you. When I am in a conspiracy minded mood I think of Our Lady of Akita saying that there would be “bishop against bishop” and then “fire will fall from the sky… greater than the deluge…wiping out a great part of humanity, sparing neither priests nor bishops…the living will envy the dead.” So, I read Ted Koppel’s book “Lights Out.” It is meticulously researched; he interviewed top government officials. In a grid-down scenario, either through EMP, a nuclear weapon detonated above us, or a cyber attack; if just eleven major transformers go down 90% of us will be dead within a year.

    [THERE’S MORE!]

    If you haven’t read much about the impact that a large EMP might have, try…

    One Second After by William R. Forstchen US HERE – UK HERE
    This is a standard in the genre.  The author, who’s got game, has written two sequels.

    Lights Out by David Crawford.  US HERE – UK HERE

    And not exactly an EMP scenario, but in the same line:

    Patriots by James Wesley Rawles. (It’s sequel HERE) UK HERE

     

    There are quite a few now that explore the impact of an EMP.  One series, the Perseid Collapse, by Steven Konkoly, starts with a pandemic and then moves to an EMP scenario.

  18. BigRed47 says:

    Soteriological? That had me run to my Webster’s.

    [THANK YOU for looking it up, instead of weak-assed “What’s that mean?”]

    Fr. Z's Gold Star Award

  19. rcg says:

    Hah! This is the good kind of click bait.

  20. LatinMan says:

    The joke of the headline is perfect, since it conveyed the sadness and anger legitimately present. I very much admire Msgr. Pope as a fathful and charitable witness to the True Faith.

    The anti-Viganò article is just downright terrible. It’s shocking that it’s shocking that a Catholic Archbishop might, gasp, give a religious justification for his actions in calling cover up of sex abuse in the Vatican.

    If you’ve never prayed for the Church, now is the time to start.

  21. TonyO says:

    while for the other faction there would be little problem, as there was only evidence of consensual homosexual activity with adults and while it is a sin everybody sins, so it should not disqualify McCarrick from anything.

    carn, some of what you said above this was correct, but this remark missed the target.

    IT WAS NOT CONSENSUAL

    This is important to remember: McCarrick was in the position of a superior, and had control over the advancement or removal of he adult seminarians and priests. They had to fear retaliation by him if they either refused or spoke out. Even if one or two of them was gay anyway, there is no reason for assuming that they wanted to have sex with him. They were forced into it by fear of drastic negative consequences. This is NOT consensual, and it is illegal as well as immoral. It violates labor laws and sexual discrimination laws bearing on the work-place. Adult or not, this was illegal and immoral even apart from the homosexuality. And it constitutes grave corruption of his position of authority and power, which DEMANDS removal from that post regardless of whether the victims were adult or not.

    And to keep that down it is good to remember, that the other side simply in a certain sense honestly does understand words and gestures differently.

    This is party true, but it is also party confused and obfuscating.

    There are gradations of error and wrong in “the other side”.

    (A) Some agree with the heinous and intrinsic evil of homosexual acts, but “simply” feel that we should not allude to this in “reaching out” to gays in order to start the conversation. And assent to the Church’s teachings.

    (B) Some agree that those acts are harmful to the person, but debate just how “evil” they are exactly, and feel that we can create a “dialogue” with gays by sidestepping what the nature of the act really is. And are not aware of any failure to assent to the Church’s teachings.

    (C) Some agree that the acts are not “exactly” natural in that they don’t pro-create, but don’t see any true harm in them besides being closed off from life, and feel that we can look for “other” goods in such relationships. And consider themselves in full agreement with the Church’s teachings.

    (D) Some agree that the acts are less desirable than those of married couples because they (“unfortunately”) can’t produce new life, but other than that the relationships are just as powerfully full of love as those of marriage. And other than this are in “full” agreement with the Church’s teachings.

    (E) Some think that gay “marriage” is true marriage, and “know” that while the Church is wrong on this, she will “come around eventually”. They otherwise are “loving and devout” Catholics.

    (F) Some think that gay acts of sex are perfectly good, and reject the Catholic Church because she teaches differently. But they refuse to “out” themselves in their heresy, and still occupy pulpits every Sunday, and sit in chanceries.

    (G) Some are secret enemies of the Church while remaining in positions of power in the Church, and might (if they only believed in Satan any more) have become conscious allies of Satan.

    (H) Some are aware of Satan being behind abortion and the gay movements, and willingly and freely choose to side with Satan and to further his purposes.

    It is foolish to assume everyone who doesn’t “get it” about gay sex is in category H, but it is equally foolish to NOT realize that all the foolishness and errors of A though G come from Satan and his workings, and those who ally themselves to him. Sure, some of them “understand” words and gestures differently, but the misunderstandings originate from a known source, and it ain’t good.

  22. un-ionized says:

    TonyO, what you say about consent and the law and difference of power is spot on. This was the worst kind of sexual harassment, the kind ending in rape.

  23. oakdiocesegirl2 says:

    Today is Judgment Day for my home diocese of Oakland: The SF Bay Area report breaks. 263 Catholic priests. Two that I know of/remember from grammar school. Cardinal Levada accused of knowing it all by this report [from a law firm]
    https://www.andersonadvocates.com/Documents/posts/Bay%20Area%20Report10-22-18.pdf

  24. tho says:

    There should be a groundswell, imploring Pope Francis to resign, he has lost all credibility. My wish for Pope would be Archbishop Vigano. I don’t think voting for a cardinal is mandatory. Archbishop Vigano and his views would bring instant trust among the laity and clergy. We need a man who is dedicated to saving souls, not men who ignore 2018 years of documented truth.

  25. Dismas says:

    Yes, an EMP event is nasty, but unless it’s from an X flare or nearby supernova, I think that the damage would not be extensive enough to eliminate an entire faction on the global stage all at once. Thus, the food fight would go on.

  26. Livewire says:

    That’s the same way I was reading it. I think it almost has to be read that way.

  27. Fr. Reader says:

    @oakdiocesegirl2.
    Sickening.

  28. carn says:

    @TonyO

    I should have stated more clearly, that the described events is how i think they are perceived by “liberal” catholics; at least i conclude this from nearly any “liberal” condemnation of McCarrick only explicitely condems him abusing children and none does seem to hint at condemning him for abuse of adults; hence, it seems that “liberals” or at least quite a number of them think that there was/is only evidence for consensual homosexual activity by McCarrick.

    Of course you are correct that is was nearly certainly non-consensual due to the power structure.

    But in that regard “liberals” are absolutely blinded at least since Clinton; cause what more drastic power imbalance could there be than between a young women without a secure job and the allegedly most powerful man in the country who is in full command of spy agencies who allegedly at least up to 5 years ago would coerce, abduct or even kill on the order of such a man?

    (At least it is claimed that some US agencies conducted up until the end of cold war such and similar operations; and yes of course there could be more drastic power imbalance; but only if the name of the man would be Stalin or such, as then “allegedly” can be dropped)

    Yet somehow the only problem about Clinton and Lewinsky were the mores of “conservatives”.

    So i realy think that most “liberals” look at what McCarrick did with adults and errenously conclude that it was consensual or at least there is insufficient evidence for other conclusions.

    Regarding (A) to (H) coming from Satan, i will not dispute this. I was only referring to that with some of these and other errors, there is no conscious dishonesty.

    E.g. someone arguing (A) might really assent to Church teaching, but honestly think that reminding “gays” constantly of that is not helpful. Of course, someone might only feign to hold that position although he adheres to one of the other letters.

    (And of course some letters do include conscious dishonesty)

  29. Seamus says:

    I imagine it took a certain amount of courage for Msgr. Pope to make a statement that risks retaliation from Apostolic Administrator Wuerl.

  30. The Cobbler says:

    Carn,

    Up until recently I was all for giving the other side the best hearing they can get; but there comes a point when malice renders such good faith pointless. I live in a conservative bubble, and even I personally know “social justice” types who think that recognising errors/lies in media narratives makes you a nazi, and feminists who (irony of ironies) get their way by threatening innocent people. If folks like that are not consciously dishonest, well, to quote someone on their side: “What difference does it make?”

  31. carn says:

    “If folks like that are not consciously dishonest, well, to quote someone on their side: “What difference does it make?””

    How one personally views them.

    Which tactics and strategies one pursues in the conflict.

    How one treats them after the conflict.

    While some people try to create loopholes the size of skyscrapers out of it, it is still Catholic teaching that intentions do matter for culpability; hence, one should not ignore intentions.

    And i do not make this suggestion from pure theory. I am a bit into some politics about abortion; i also have contact with some people nominally in favor of an unlimited “right” to abortion; yet, their intention is not to happily celebrate and make money on butchering babys; and hence, i modify my approach to them accordingly, as my behavior towards them has to be different thatn my behavior would have to be towards people being in favor of a “right” to abortion cause baby butchering being so much fun and profit.

    That does not change that of course they are wrong to be in favor of a “right” to abortion.

  32. The Cobbler says:

    Carn,

    If I were only dealing with people mistaken in good faith about some grave moral matter, those are exactly the reasons I’d have given for granting them the benefit of the doubt.

    But intention doesn’t change the fact that one cannot dialogue with opponents who think you are a monster simply for not blindly accepting what they say. Nor does it change the fact that one cannot trust someone who uses intimidation tactics to try to control you. God may judge them as He sees fit; I am constrained by the facts of their actions.

    In fact, because of these sorts of partisans I cannot even dialogue with other, more reasonable progressives or with left-leaning centrists, nor speak openly with my conservative friends on politicized matters. One of them said as much: not to even talk about issues where that person can see it. I’m generally for ignoring such threats, since anyone who would follow through on them is no friend in the first place; but unfortunately this particular individual is too closely involved in my life for me to disregard the danger.

    So for all my attempts to be diplomatic, at the end of the day, neither my efforts nor good intentions on the part of others is worth much once we cross over into true hostility. As our president would say: “Sad.” or perhaps “Shameful!”